D'Angelo Keiyawn Threatt v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-1072

Filed: Feb. 6, 2020

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: D'Angelo Keiyawn Threatt

Summary

D'Angelo Keiyawn Threatt appealed his conviction for being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm. His conviction and sentence was 8 years in prison. Judge Kuehn dissented. In this case, Threatt was found guilty by a jury and sentenced by the court. He argued that the trial was unfair because the prosecution mentioned specific past crimes when they didn't need to. He believed this made it harder for him to get a fair trial. He also claimed that the prosecutor made unfair statements during the trial, hurting his chances for a fair outcome. Lastly, he thought that when looking at all the mistakes made during the trial together, he deserved a new trial. However, the appeals court looked at all the evidence and arguments carefully and decided that Threatt didn’t show he was treated unfairly or that any supposed errors changed the outcome of the trial. The judges confirmed that the original decision to convict Threatt and give him an 8-year sentence was correct.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing the State to name the specific prior felony conviction despite the defense's stipulation?
• Did the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument constitute highly prejudicial and inflammatory statements depriving the defendant of a fair trial?
• Do cumulative trial errors warrant a new trial for the defendant?

Findings

• the court did not err in allowing the State to name the specific prior felony conviction
• the prosecutor's statements during closing argument did not constitute reversible misconduct
• cumulative error did not deprive Threatt of a fair trial

F-2018-1072

Feb. 6, 2020

D'Angelo Keiyawn Threatt

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE:

Appellant, D’Angelo Keiyawn Threatt, was tried and convicted by a jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2017-6899, of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp. 2014, § 1283. The jury recommended a sentence of eight years imprisonment. The Honorable Cindy H. Truong, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Threatt in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Judge Truong further imposed various costs and fees. Threatt now appeals, raising three propositions of error before this Court:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ALLOWING THE STATE TO NAME THE SPECIFIC PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AGREED TO STIPULATE THAT MR. THREATT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY VIOLATING MR. THREATT’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL;

II. THE PROSECUTOR MADE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL AND INFLAMMATORY STATEMENTS DURING CLOSING ARGUMENT DEPRIVING MR. THREATT OF A FAIR TRIAL; and

III. TRIAL ERRORS WHEN CONSIDERED IN A CUMULATIVE FASHION, WARRANT A NEW TRIAL.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and the parties’ briefs, we find that no relief is required under the law and evidence. Threatt’s judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

**Propositions**

I. In his first proposition of error, Threatt claims the trial court abused its discretion when it spurned Threatt’s proffered stipulation and overruled his objection to State’s Exhibit 3. He argues that because the trial court erred in allowing the State to name a prejudicial prior to prove the prior felony conviction, he was denied a fair trial. Threatt relies heavily on Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), to argue his stipulation to a former felony conviction barred the prosecutor from introducing this evidence at trial. The defendant in Old Chief was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of a federal statute. Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 174-75. Similar to Threatt, Old Chief offered to stipulate to his prior felony conviction, arguing that his offer of stipulation rendered evidence of the name and nature of his prior offense inadmissible as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. Id., 519 U.S. at 175. The Government refused to join the stipulation, arguing that it had a right to present its own evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions. Id., 519 U.S. at 177. The trial court agreed, and it allowed the Government to introduce into evidence the judgment record for the prior conviction. Id. Old Chief was convicted of the charged offense, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Old Chief’s conviction, holding that the admission of the name of his prior crime was not an abuse of discretion. Id., 519 U.S. at 177. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the trial court abused its discretion when it rejected Old Chief’s offer to stipulate to his prior conviction and instead admitted the full record of a prior judgment. Although the Court acknowledged the standard rule that a defendant’s offer to stipulate an element of the offense generally cannot prevail over the Government’s choice to offer evidence showing guilt, the Court determined that once Old Chief stipulated to the prior felony, its nature, while relevant, did not survive the weighing process of probative value against the substantial danger of unfair prejudice. Id., 519 U.S. at 190-92.

Contrary to Threatt’s assertion on appeal, Threatt failed to properly preserve this issue when he failed to enter a timely and specific objection to the State’s use of his prior conviction for forcible oral sodomy prior to the reading of the Information. Threatt’s objection to the admission of State’s Exhibit 3 was too little, too late. While Threatt’s offer to stipulate to the underlying felony offense prior to the commencement of trial related to the admission of State’s Exhibit 3, his offer was specifically made in the interest of saving time and resources, not the grounds he now asserts on appeal. Pickens v. State, 2001 OK CR 3, 31, 19 P.3d 866, 878 (Whenever a defendant makes a specific objection at trial, no different objections will be considered on appeal.). Moreover, Threatt did not reassert his pre-trial motion requesting that the State be required to redact the underlying felony for his Felon in Possession of Firearm charge from the Information, or alternatively be required to substitute a less prejudicial charge. The jury was therefore informed that the qualifying felony was forcible oral sodomy when the Information was read to the jury at the onset of trial. Thus, Threatt’s subsequent and purported renewed objection to the admission of State’s Exhibit 3 was both untimely as well as too vague as he failed to accompany his objection with a renewed offer to stipulate to the conviction on the grounds argued here-i.e. the nature of the State’s elected qualifying felony was more prejudicial than probative.

To be entitled to relief for plain error, Threatt must show: (1) the existence of an actual error (i.e., deviation from a legal rule); (2) that the error is plain or obvious; and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights, meaning the error affected the outcome of the proceeding. Musonda v. State, 2019 OK CR 1, 6, 435 P.3d 694, 696. This Court will only correct plain error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or otherwise represents a miscarriage of justice. Id.; Baird v. State, 2017 OK CR 16, 25, 400 P.3d 875, 883. Assuming without deciding that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to reject Threatt’s proffered stipulation and overruled his objection to the admission of State’s Exhibit 3, Threatt fails to show plain error as Threatt suffered no prejudice. The evidence of Threatt’s guilt was overwhelming. Threatt likewise fails to show he suffered any prejudice in the sentencing phase of his trial. The range of punishment for a violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 1283-Felon in Possession of a Firearm, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies-is three years to life imprisonment. 21 O.S.2011, § 51.1. Threatt’s eight year sentence can hardly be found to have been prejudicially impacted by the trial court’s challenged evidentiary determinations. Threatt fails to show any prejudice as a result of the trial court’s challenged evidentiary determinations. Any error, plain or otherwise, relating to the admission of the State’s elected qualifying conviction was harmless. Relief is not required or warranted. Proposition I is denied.

II. Threatt complains prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of his right to a fair trial. We will not grant relief for improper argument unless, viewed in the context of the whole trial, the statements rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, so that the jury’s verdict is unreliable. Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986); Tryon v. State, 2018 OK CR 20, 137, 423 P.3d 617, 654. However, as none of the comments at issue were met with a contemporaneous objection at trial, we review the alleged misconduct for plain error only. Chadwell v. State, 2019 OK CR 14, 9, 446 P.3d 1244, 1247. Again, this Court will only correct plain error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or otherwise represents a miscarriage of justice. Musonda, 2019 OK CR 1, 6, 435 P.3d at 696. [W]e evaluate the alleged misconduct within the context of the entire trial, considering not only the propriety of the prosecutor’s actions, but also the strength of the evidence against the defendant and the corresponding arguments of defense counsel. Hanson v. State, 2009 OK CR 13, 18, 206 P.3d 1020, 1028.

Review of the challenged remarks does not reveal prosecutorial misconduct at all, let alone error-plain or otherwise. The prosecutor’s sentencing argument that Threatt lives a life of crime and is a threat to us when he is on the street were reasonable comments and inferences based on the evidence as opposed to an appeal to improper factors. Bench v. State, 2018 OK CR 31, 145, 431 P.3d 929, 968; Smallwood v. State, 1995 OK CR 60, 37, 907 P.2d 217, 229; Hartsfield v. State, 1986 OK CR 115, 12, 722 P.2d 717, 720. Appellant was not deprived of a fundamentally fair trial from the challenged comments. Proposition II is denied.

III. Threatt alleges that relief is warranted based upon the cumulative effect of the propositions of error alleged in his brief in chief. Cumulative error, however, does not deprive the defendant of a fair trial when the errors considered together do not affect the outcome of the proceedings. Postelle v. State, 2011 OK CR 30, 94, 267 P.3d 114, 146 (internal quote omitted). Threatt’s claims, neither individually nor collectively, warrant relief. Proposition III is denied.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 D.S.Supp. 2014, § 1283.
2. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51.1.
3. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997).
4. Postelle v. State, 2011 OK CR 30, I 94, 267 P.3d 114, 146.
5. 12 O.S.2011, § 2403.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1283 (2014) - Felon in Possession of a Firearm
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 51.1 (2011) - Sentencing for Repeat Felons
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2020) - Mandate Issuance
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentencing Factors

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

• 21 U.S.C. § 851 - Enhancements for prior felony convictions
• Federal Rules of Evidence 403 - Excluding relevant evidence for prejudice

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997)
• Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986)
• Tryon v. State, 2018 OK CR 20, I 137, 423 P.3d 617, 654
• Chadwell v. State, 2019 OK CR 14, I 9, 446 P.3d 1244, 1247
• Musonda v. State, 2019 OK CR 1, I 6, 435 P.3d 694, 696
• Bench v. State, 2018 OK CR 31, I 145, 431 P.3d 929, 968
• Smallwood v. State, 1995 OK CR 60, I 37, 907 P.2d 217, 229
• Hartsfield v. State, 1986 OK CR 115, I 12, 722 P.2d 717, 720
• Pickens v. State, 2001 OK CR 3, I 31, 19 P.3d 866, 878
• Postelle v. State, 2011 OK CR 30, I 94, 267 P.3d 114, 146